[dr_who]

Yep, the Reason magazine retort to the NYT article ("Speed 5: This Time for Sure!") argues along those lines:

First the government encouraged illicit production of methamphetamine by restricting access to legal speed. Then it encouraged pseudoephedrine-based production by banning or restricting other precursors. Appalled by all the scary, toxic, flammable meth labs that subsequently popped up around the country, it restricted access to cold and allergy remedies containing pseudoephedrine, forcing customers to ask pharmacists for them, sign a registry, and abide by quantity limits. Those restrictions, in turn, encouraged a shift to the "shake and bake" method for producing meth, which is less complicated and does not require as much pseudoephedrine but is in some ways more dangerous and more environmentally destructive. The next logical step, according to Lincoln County, Oregon, District Attorney Rob Bovett, is to require a prescription for products containing pseudoephedrine, thereby banning all over-the-counter sales. This time for sure!

[Paddy Irish]

No offense, but Reason mag is stupid. They are unrealistic babies, and they never take into account the dark side of man in any of their arguments. In the last month alone their writers have advocated the end of drunk driving laws, legalizing cocaine, and allowing felons to vote.